.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
Should a highly successful and effective leader adhere to an equally high level of personal ethics and morality? In other words, does leadership success justify, or at least excuse, certain personal ethical failings? Or, do you have to match your words with your own actions to become a truly effective and authentic leader?
These were some of the questions that confronted me yesterday when I arrived in Seoul for the first time in a few years. As we drove past somewhere in Gangnam, my colleague pointed out a huge, modern super structure: "That's the new Sarang Church. Isn't it huge?" Huge was an understatement. It was more than the sheer size, but the modern, in-your-face grandiosity that was more striking. Its very presence shouted out wealth and power from every piece of brick, glass and Italian marble tile.
The Sarang Church is not unique. Its story is not unlike those of other megachurches everywhere that usually goes like this.
The founder creates an organization ― selling his own brand of religious or spiritual vision ― and makes it successful through his own originality, ingenuity and hard work. In the process, the followers venerate him as a spiritual icon, respect him as a beacon of human morality and obey his every managerial decision without questions. In fact, he becomes the organization. His public persona is cultivated with precise calculation and delivered with precision, aimed at reinforcing this image of omniscient and omnipresent spiritual force among his followers.
However, his personal life usually does not completely bear out his moral teachings. There are always problems with sex, money, non-transparency and cronyism. These problems become magnified during transition periods, dividing the flock into dissenting holier-than-thou tribes all trying to grab a piece of the lucrative pie.
As a fascinated observer, I always find myself asking in such cases: "Does the inherent hypocrisy of a leader ― in their personal actions and public persona ― negatively affect his leadership?"
Judging by the history, it does not seem to. These megachurches seem to be going strong. In the political arena, some of our most admired presidents were obvious womanizers. However, I believe that organizations led by leaders who suffer from a public vs. personal moral duality do not succeed over a prolonged period of time, since the inherent hypocrisy is a symptom of the leader who is putting his own narcissistic desires above the wellbeing of the organization. The organization exists solely to serve his needs, for he equates the organization with himself. Sooner or later, the hypocrisy explodes onto the public stage to doom the organization (e.g. Jimmy Swaggert or PTL) or the organization falls alongside the death of the leader.
The true test of an organization lies in its longevity. Authentic leaders strengthen and fortify the organization so it continues to meet new challenges successfully, instead of designing the organization to serve their own personal reputation and agenda. These leaders truly serve the organization, while other leaders would seek to have the organization serve him.
This is the essence of servant-leadership, a term coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970. He writes: "The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types… The best test, but difficult to administer, is: Do those who serve grow as people? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous?"
And that's the key: autonomy.
A narcissistic leader purposely creates dependency on his followers because leadership is all about him. He needs the power and adoration that comes from being the one and only. He needs to be at the top of the pyramid. Everyone else needs to remain stunted.
A servant leader nurtures autonomy in his followers because leadership is all about helping others grow so that they also become caring, contributing members of the larger community to which they belong. It's all about regeneration of the community so that everyone has an opportunity to develop and reach their potential. And regeneration is essential for the resiliency and longevity of the organization.
Going back to my original question, "Should a highly successful and effective leader adhere to an equally high level of personal ethics and morality?"
The answer is a resounding, "Yes." However, by ethics, I don't just mean how much money the leader spends on buildings or people he sleeps with. The more important "ethics" is whether the leadership is solely about the "leader" or more about the wellbeing of the "follower."
Jason Lim is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006. He can be reached at jasonlim@msn.com, facebook. com/jasonlimkoreatimes and @jasonlim2012.
![[INTERVIEW] German professor hopes to boost appreciation for Korean traditional music](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/bfd15b77cdda4f549455b97d6ce4863c.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
